Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Kumar vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 5 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)ILLJ724P&H, (1999)122PLR494
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner prays that the order, dated November 25, 1998, passed by the Labour Court, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P11 with the writ petition be set aside. By this order, the Labour Court has set aside the ex parte award of October 15, 1997.
2. We have heard Sri Amrit Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the Labour Court had given an award in favour of the workman on October 15, 1997. This award was published by being placed on the notice board of the third respondent, viz., the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, on January 6, 1998. On the expiry of 30 days from January 6, 1998, the Labour Court had become functus officio and was, thus not entitled to recall the award or to interfere therewith.
3. A perusal of the order shows that on March 17, 1997 the Labour Court had directed the issue of notice of the claim petition to the management, for May 6, 1997. The order was in the following terms :
"Order, dated March 17, 1997 Present : Sri S. K. Goswami, AR for the workman.
None for the management.
Notice be issued to the management for May 6, 1997 for C.S. (Sd) P.O. March 17, 1997."
On May 6, 1997, the Court had passed the following order :
"Present : Sri S. K. Goswami, AR for the workman.
None for the Management Case called several times. None is appearing on behalf of the management. Management is proceeded against ex parte. For ex parte evidence of the workman to come up on June 3, 1998.
(Sd) P.O. May 6, 1997."
4. A perusal of the above order shows that ex parte proceedings were initiated against the respondent management without even recording that the notice had been duly served. Thereafter ex parte evidence was recorded and the award, dated October 15, 1997, had been delivered. In pursuance to this award, the Labour Inspector appears to have given a notice to the management. Thereupon, it came to know of the award and filed an application, dated March 18, 1998, for setting aside of the exparte order. In this application it was, inter alia, pleaded that the order, dated May 6, 1997 by which the ex parte proceedings had been, initiated, was wholly illegal. After consideration of the matter, the Labour Court has recorded the following conclusion in Para 11 of the award.
"11. A study into the orders reproduced, above shows that on January 20, 1997, Sri Anup Rai, had appeared for the management but none had appeared on March 17, 1997. My learned predecessor had not ordered ex parte proceedings against the management. It appears that she was not satisfied with the service of the notice on the management' My learned predecessor had ordered on March 17, 1997 that notice be issued to the management for May 6, 1997. On May 6, 1997 the management was ordered to be proceeded against exparte without recording any reason for passing the said order. The case was adjourned for ex parte evidence of the petitioner. In due course ex parte evidence of the petitioner was recorded and award, dated October 15, 1997, was passed. A perusal of the order, dated May 6, 1998, shows that no notice had been served upon the management for that date, i.e., May 6, 1997. That being so, it was not proper to proceed ex parte against the management. The management has been seriously prejudiced by this order, dated May 6, 1997, as it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte without any notice and has eventually been condemned unheard."
It has, thus, been found that ex parte proceedings were ordered to be initiated against the management without any notice having been served upon it. The order, dated May 6, 1997, was, thus, wholly illegal. In this situation, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Labour Court is perfectly just and fair. It is calculated to promote justice.
5. Sri Amrit Paul, however, contends that after the award had been duly published, the Labour Court had become functus officio. We are not satisfied that in the circumstances of this case it can be said that the Labour Court had become functus officio. Prima facie it appears that the award had been forwarded by the Labour Inspector to the respondent-management on March 11, 1998. It was actually received by the management on March 17, 1998. It had immediately filed an application for setting aside of the exparte award of October 15, 1997. In this situation, the management had apparently acted with utmost promptitude. It had wasted no time. The Labour Court had rightly exercised its discretion to intervene.
6. Sri Amrit Paul contends that the management had notice of the award on February 6, 1998 when it had appeared before the Labour Inspector. He refers to the copy of the order which has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition. A perusal of this document shows that the Labour Inspector had recorded on February 6, 1998 that "copy of the order of award is not available". Thus, the proceedings were adjourned to February 18, 1998. In this situation, it cannot be said that the management had notice of the award on February 6, 1998. In any event, if all the technicalities are taken into even I consideration and it is presumed that the Labour Court had become functus officio, this Court would be inclined to set aside the ex parte award when it is established on the record that ex parte proceedings had been initiated, against the management without service of any notice. Learned counsel had not been able to satisfy us that the management had been served with the notice before May 6, 1997 when ex parte proceedings were initiated.
7. In this situation, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is perfectly just and fair. It has given an opportunity to both the sides to prove their respective claims. Consequently, it calls for no interference in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.